The mishna says that dead animals can join together to get to a requisite amount and creeping creatures also. Is the topic of the mishna for eating or for transferring impurities or both? There are three different opinions. According to Rav the requisite amount for eating creeping creatures is an olive bulk – which is different from the amount required for impurities – a lentil bulk. The gemara questions this opinion from another source and tries to resolve the contradiction.
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Meilah 16
לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא לְעִנְיַן טוּמְאָה, אֲבָל לְעִנְיַן אֲכִילָה – טְהוֹרִין בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָן, וּטְמֵאִים בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָן. וְלֵוִי אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ לַאֲכִילָה נָמֵי מִצְטָרְפִין.
The mishna taught that all carcasses join together, which indicates that carcasses of non-kosher animals join together with carcasses of kosher animals, only with regard to ritual impurity. But with regard to the prohibition of eating animal carcasses, kosher animal carcasses are distinct, i.e., they join together only with other kosher animals, and non-kosher animal carcasses are likewise distinct. And Levi says: Even with regard to the prohibition of eating animal carcasses, kosher and non-kosher carcasses join together.
וְרַב אַסִּי אָמַר: טְהוֹרִים לְעַצְמָן וּטְמֵאִין לְעַצְמָן. אִיכָּא דְאָמְרִי: פְּלִיגָא אַדְּרַב, וְאִיכָּא דְאָמְרִי: לָא פְּלִיגָא.
And Rav Asi says: Kosher animal carcasses are distinct, and non-kosher animal carcasses are distinct. Since Rav Asi did not specify whether he is referring only to eating or also to ritual impurity, there are those who say that Rav Asi disagrees with the opinion of Rav, i.e., he interprets the mishna as referring to all carcasses of a similar kind, that is, from kosher animals on the one hand, and from non-kosher animals on the other hand. And there are those who say that Rav Asi does not disagree with the opinion of Rav, and concedes that kosher and non-kosher animal carcasses join together with regard to ritual impurity.
מֵיתִיבִי: מִיתַת פָּרָה, וְחַיֵּי גָמָל – אֵין מִצְטָרְפִין זֶה עִם זֶה. הָא מִיתַת שְׁנֵיהֶם – מִצְטָרְפִין, וְקַשְׁיָא לְרַב אַסִּי!
The Gemara raises an objection against the first explanation of the opinion of Rav Asi from a baraita: With regard to half an olive-bulk from the carcass of a dead cow and half an olive-bulk from the flesh of a live camel, they do not join together with one another. It can be inferred from here that if both of them are dead, they do join together. Rav can explain this baraita as referring to ritual impurity, but this poses a difficulty to Rav Asi.
אֵימָא: הָא חַיֵּי שְׁנֵיהֶם – מִצְטָרְפִין, וּמַנִּי – רַבִּי יְהוּדָה הִיא, דְּאָמַר: אֵבֶר מִן הַחַי נוֹהֵג בַּטְּמֵאָה.
The Gemara answers: One should say that the correct inference from the baraita is not that if both of them, the cow and the camel, are dead, then they join together. Rather, one should infer that if both of them are alive, they join together. And who is the tanna of the baraita? It is Rabbi Yehuda, who said: The prohibition of eating a limb from a living animal applies even to the limb of a non-kosher animal.
אֲבָל מִיתַת שְׁנֵיהֶם, מַאי? לָא מִצְטָרְפִי? אִם כֵּן, מַאי אִירְיָא דְּרָהֵיט וְתָנֵי ״מִיתַת פָּרָה וְחַיֵּי גָמָל״, הָא אֲפִילּוּ מִיתַת שְׁנֵיהֶם לָא מִצְטָרְפִי!
The Gemara raises a difficulty with this answer. But in that case, what is the halakha if both of them, the cow and the camel, are dead? Do they not join together? If so, why does the tanna run specifically to an extreme case and teach: Half an olive-bulk from the carcass of a dead cow and half an olive-bulk from the flesh of a live camel? After all, even if both of them are dead, they do not join together.
וְעוֹד, תַּנְיָא: חֲצִי זַיִת פָּרָה בְּחַיֶּיהָ וַחֲצִי זַיִת גָּמָל בְּמִיתָתָהּ – אֵין מִצְטָרְפִין. אֲבָל חֲצִי זַיִת מִפָּרָה וַחֲצִי זַיִת מִגָּמָל, בֵּין בְּחַיֶּיהָ בֵּין בְּמִיתָתָהּ – מִצְטָרְפִין. קַשְׁיָא רֵישָׁא אַסֵּיפָא! אֶלָּא לָאו שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: מִיתַת שְׁנֵיהֶם – מִצְטָרְפִין!?
And furthermore, it is taught in a baraita: Half an olive-bulk from the flesh of a cow when it is alive and half an olive-bulk from the carcass of a camel when it is dead do not join together; but half an olive-bulk from a cow and half an olive-bulk from a camel, whether alive or dead, do join together. The first clause in the baraita is difficult as it is apparently contradicted by the latter clause. Rather, isn’t it correct to conclude from the baraita that if there is half an olive-bulk from each of the two of them when they are dead, they join together?
אָמַר לְךָ רַב אַסִּי: הַאי תַּנָּא סָבַר אִיסּוּר חָל עַל אִיסּוּר.
The Gemara answers: Rav Asi could have said to you that this tanna holds that a prohibition takes effect even where another prohibition already exists. He maintains that the prohibition of eating an animal carcass takes effect even with regard to the flesh of a non-kosher animal, which is already prohibited, and for this reason the two half olive-bulks join together, as the same prohibition against eating an animal carcass applies to both. By contrast, Rav Asi himself maintains that a prohibition does not take effect where another prohibition already exists, and therefore this baraita does not pose a difficulty to his opinion that the two do not combine.
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה, אָמַר רַב: אֲכִילַת שְׁרָצִים – לוֹקֶה עָלָיו בִּכְזַיִת. מַאי טַעְמָא? ׳אֲכִילָה׳ כְּתִיב בְּהוּ.
§ Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: With regard to eating creeping animals, one is flogged for eating an olive-bulk of them. What is the reason? It is because the term “eating” is written in the Torah with regard to them. The verse states: “And every creeping thing that swarms upon the earth is a detestable thing; it shall not be eaten” (Leviticus 11:41). The term “eating” is invariably referring to consuming an olive-bulk.
וְהָתָנֵי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: ״וְהִבְדַּלְתֶּם בֵּין הַבְּהֵמָה הַטְּהֹרָה לַטְּמֵאָה וּבֵין הָעוֹף הַטָּמֵא לַטָּהֹר וְלֹא תְשַׁקְּצוּ אֶת נַפְשֹׁתֵיכֶם בַּבְּהֵמָה וּבָעוֹף וּבְכֹל אֲשֶׁר תִּרְמֹשׂ הָאֲדָמָה אֲשֶׁר הִבְדַּלְתִּי לָכֶם לְטַמֵּא״ – פָּתַח הַכָּתוּב בַּאֲכִילָה, וְסִיֵּים בְּטוּמְאָה.
The Gemara raises a difficulty. But didn’t Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Ḥanina teach the following baraita before Rabbi Yoḥanan: The verse states: “You shall separate between the kosher animal and the non-kosher, and between the non-kosher bird and the kosher; and you shall not make your souls detestable by animal, or by bird, or by anything that swarms on the ground, which I have set apart for you as impure” (Leviticus 20:25). The verse opens with eating creeping animals, in the phrase “You shall not make your souls detestable,” and it ends with the ritual impurity of creeping animals: “Which I have set apart for you as impure.”
מָה טוּמְאָה בְּכַעֲדָשָׁה, אַף אֲכִילָה בְּכַעֲדָשָׁה. וְקַלְּסֵיהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, וְקַשְׁיָא לִדְרַב!
The baraita explains: This teaches that just as the carcass of a creeping animal imparts ritual impurity through contact when it is the volume of a lentil-bulk, so too, one is liable for the prohibition of eating a creeping animal when it is the volume of a lentil-bulk. And Rabbi Yoḥanan praised [vekilseih] Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Ḥanina for citing this baraita. And this poses a difficulty to the opinion of Rav, who maintains that one is flogged only if he eats an olive-bulk of creeping animals.
לָא קַשְׁיָא: כָּאן – בְּמִיתָתָן, כָּאן – בְּחַיֵּיהֶן.
The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. Here, the baraita is referring to eating creeping animals when they are dead, at which stage they impart ritual impurity and one is liable for eating a lentil-bulk. By contrast, there, Rav is speaking about eating creeping animals when they are alive, which do not yet impart ritual impurity. For this reason one is flogged only if he eats an olive-bulk.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: וְהָא רַב אַמַּתְנִיתִין קָאֵי, וּמַתְנִיתִין ״כׇּל הַשְּׁרָצִים״ קָתָנֵי, אֲפִילּוּ בְּמִיתָתָן. לָאו דְּאִיכָּא פּוּרְתָּא מֵהַאי וּפוּרְתָּא מֵהַאי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב יוֹסֵף: הָהִיא דִּיּוּקָא דִּילָךְ הוּא. רַב – שְׁמַעְתָּא בְּעָלְמָא קָאָמַר.
Abaye said to Rav Yosef: But in his statement Rav was referring to the mishna, and the mishna teaches: And all the creeping animals join together to constitute the requisite olive-bulk measure to render one who consumes it liable to receive lashes. This indicates that this halakha applies even when they are dead. Is the mishna not referring to a case where there is a bit of this live creeping animal and a bit of that carcass of a creeping animal, which together combine to amount to an olive-bulk? Rav Yosef said to Abaye: This deductive inference, that Rav is referring to the mishna, is yours. But in fact Rav was merely saying a halakha unconnected to the mishna. Therefore, there is no proof that Rav was speaking about the carcasses of creeping animals.
וְקַלְּסֵיהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן. מֵיתִיבִי: הָאֵיבָרִין – אֵין לָהֶן שִׁיעוּר, אֲפִילּוּ פָּחוֹת מִכְּזַיִת נְבֵלָה וּפָחוֹת מִכַּעֲדָשָׁה מִן הַשֶּׁרֶץ – מְטַמְּאִין. וְאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אֵין לוֹקִין עֲלֵיהֶן אֶלָּא בִּכְזַיִת!
The Gemara stated: And Rabbi Yoḥanan praised Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Ḥanina for citing the baraita that rules that one is liable for violating the prohibition of eating a creeping animal by the amount of a lentil-bulk. The Gemara raises an objection from a mishna (Oholot 1:7): The whole limbs of impure bodies have no minimum measure with regard to imparting ritual impurity. Even if the limbs were less than an olive-bulk of a carcass or less than a lentil-bulk of a creeping animal, they impart ritual impurity. And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: This mishna is referring to the halakhot of ritual impurity; but with regard to the minimum measure which renders one liable for consumption, one is flogged for eating them only if they amount to an olive-bulk.
אָמַר רָבָא: בְּמוּבְדָּלִין דִּבֵּר הַכָּתוּב.
Rava says in resolution of the apparent contradiction between Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statements: When Rabbi Yoḥanan said that one is flogged for eating even a lentil-bulk of a creeping animal, he was referring only to those eight creeping animals of which the verse speaks, which are separated from all other creeping animals. The Torah (Leviticus 11:29–32) lists eight types of creeping animals, and Rabbi Yoḥanan was referring specifically to those eight. He maintains that one is flogged for eating a lentil-bulk of such creatures, whereas in the case of other creeping animals one is flogged only for eating an olive-bulk of them.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה לְרָבָא: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, בְּהֵמָה נָמֵי, לִיפְלְגִי בֵּין מוּבְדֶּלֶת לְשֶׁאֵינָהּ מוּבְדֶּלֶת.
Rav Adda bar Ahava said to Rava: If that is so, that there is a difference in the measure of liability for consumption between various types of creeping animals, the same should also apply with regard to an animal. Since the Torah in Leviticus 20:25 juxtaposes both kosher animals and non-kosher animals to creeping animals, one can say that an analogous difference should apply here as well: Let the halakha distinguish between flesh from the carcass of kosher animals, which is separated from other types in that it is permitted in consumption by the Torah, and flesh from the carcass of a non-kosher animal, which is not separated, i.e., which is not permitted by the Torah. Consequently, if the carcass of a kosher animal imparts ritual impurity by the amount of an olive-bulk of flesh, the measure of flesh from the carcass of a non-kosher animal that imparts ritual impurity should be larger, i.e., an egg-bulk.
Follow 
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
At almost 70 I am just beginning my journey with Talmud and Hadran. I began not late, but right when I was called to learn. It is never too late to begin! The understanding patience of staff and participants with more experience and knowledge has been fabulous. The joy of learning never stops and for me. It is a new life, a new light, a new depth of love of The Holy One, Blessed be He.
Deborah Hoffman-Wade
Richmond, CA, United States
I started learning after the siyum hashas for women and my daily learning has been a constant over the last two years. It grounded me during the chaos of Corona while providing me with a community of fellow learners. The Daf can be challenging but it’s filled with life’s lessons, struggles and hope for a better world. It’s not about the destination but rather about the journey. Thank you Hadran!
Dena Lehrman
אפרת, Israel
After experiences over the years of asking to join gemara shiurim for men and either being refused by the maggid shiur or being the only women there, sometimes behind a mechitza, I found out about Hadran sometime during the tail end of Masechet Shabbat, I think. Life has been much better since then.
Madeline Cohen
London, United Kingdom
It happened without intent (so am I yotzei?!) – I watched the women’s siyum live and was so moved by it that the next morning, I tuned in to Rabbanit Michelle’s shiur, and here I am, still learning every day, over 2 years later. Some days it all goes over my head, but others I grasp onto an idea or a story, and I ‘get it’ and that’s the best feeling in the world. So proud to be a Hadran learner.
Jeanne Yael Klempner
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
I started learning Daf Yomi inspired by תָּפַסְתָּ מְרוּבֶּה לֹא תָּפַסְתָּ, תָּפַסְתָּ מוּעָט תָּפַסְתָּ. I thought I’d start the first page, and then see. I was swept up into the enthusiasm of the Hadran Siyum, and from there the momentum kept building. Rabbanit Michelle’s shiur gives me an anchor, a connection to an incredible virtual community, and an energy to face whatever the day brings.
Medinah Korn
בית שמש, Israel
I started learning when my brother sent me the news clip of the celebration of the last Daf Yomi cycle. I was so floored to see so many women celebrating that I wanted to be a part of it. It has been an enriching experience studying a text in a language I don’t speak, using background knowledge that I don’t have. It is stretching my learning in unexpected ways, bringing me joy and satisfaction.
Jodi Gladstone
Warwick, Rhode Island, United States
I was exposed to Talmud in high school, but I was truly inspired after my daughter and I decided to attend the Women’s Siyum Shas in 2020. We knew that this was a historic moment. We were blown away, overcome with emotion at the euphoria of the revolution. Right then, I knew I would continue. My commitment deepened with the every-morning Virtual Beit Midrash on Zoom with R. Michelle.
Adina Hagege
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
About a year into learning more about Judaism on a path to potential conversion, I saw an article about the upcoming Siyum HaShas in January of 2020. My curiosity was piqued and I immediately started investigating what learning the Daf actually meant. Daily learning? Just what I wanted. Seven and a half years? I love a challenge! So I dove in head first and I’ve enjoyed every moment!!
Nickie Matthews
Blacksburg, United States
Margo
I started my Talmud journey in 7th grade at Akiba Jewish Day School in Chicago. I started my Daf Yomi journey after hearing Erica Brown speak at the Hadran Siyum about marking the passage of time through Daf Yomi.
Carolyn
I started my Talmud journey post-college in NY with a few classes. I started my Daf Yomi journey after the Hadran Siyum, which inspired both my son and myself.
Carolyn Hochstadter and Margo Kossoff Shizgal
Merion Station, USA
Beit Shemesh, Israel
In July, 2012 I wrote for Tablet about the first all women’s siyum at Matan in Jerusalem, with 100 women. At the time, I thought, I would like to start with the next cycle – listening to a podcast at different times of day makes it possible. It is incredible that after 10 years, so many women are so engaged!
Beth Kissileff
Pittsburgh, United States
A few years back, after reading Ilana Kurshan’s book, “If All The Seas Were Ink,” I began pondering the crazy, outlandish idea of beginning the Daf Yomi cycle. Beginning in December, 2019, a month before the previous cycle ended, I “auditioned” 30 different podcasts in 30 days, and ultimately chose to take the plunge with Hadran and Rabbanit Michelle. Such joy!
Cindy Dolgin
HUNTINGTON, United States
I start learning Daf Yomi in January 2020. The daily learning with Rabbanit Michelle has kept me grounded in this very uncertain time. Despite everything going on – the Pandemic, my personal life, climate change, war, etc… I know I can count on Hadran’s podcast to bring a smile to my face.
Deb Engel
Los Angeles, United States
I started learning at the start of this cycle, and quickly fell in love. It has become such an important part of my day, enriching every part of my life.
Naomi Niederhoffer
Toronto, Canada
At almost 70 I am just beginning my journey with Talmud and Hadran. I began not late, but right when I was called to learn. It is never too late to begin! The understanding patience of staff and participants with more experience and knowledge has been fabulous. The joy of learning never stops and for me. It is a new life, a new light, a new depth of love of The Holy One, Blessed be He.
Deborah Hoffman-Wade
Richmond, CA, United States
“I got my job through the NY Times” was an ad campaign when I was growing up. I can headline “I got my daily Daf shiur and Hadran through the NY Times”. I read the January 4, 2020 feature on Reb. Michelle Farber and Hadran and I have been participating ever since. Thanks NY Times & Hadran!
Deborah Aschheim
New York, United States
My family recently made Aliyah, because we believe the next chapter in the story of the Jewish people is being written here, and we want to be a part of it. Daf Yomi, on the other hand, connects me BACK, to those who wrote earlier chapters thousands of years ago. So, I feel like I’m living in the middle of this epic story. I’m learning how it all began, and looking ahead to see where it goes!
Tina Lamm
Jerusalem, Israel
I started learning Gemara at the Yeshivah of Flatbush. And I resumed ‘ברוך ה decades later with Rabbanit Michele at Hadran. I started from Brachot and have had an exciting, rewarding experience throughout seder Moed!
Anne Mirsky
Maale Adumim, Israel
A beautiful world of Talmudic sages now fill my daily life with discussion and debate.
bringing alive our traditions and texts that has brought new meaning to my life.
I am a מגילת אסתר reader for women . the words in the Mishna of מסכת megillah 17a
הקורא את המגילה למפרע לא יצא were powerful to me.
I hope to have the zchut to complete the cycle for my 70th birthday.
Sheila Hauser
Jerusalem, Israel
Attending the Siyyum in Jerusalem 26 months ago inspired me to become part of this community of learners. So many aspects of Jewish life have been illuminated by what we have learned in Seder Moed. My day is not complete without daf Yomi. I am so grateful to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Community.
Nancy Kolodny
Newton, United States
My Daf journey began in August 2012 after participating in the Siyum Hashas where I was blessed as an “enabler” of others. Galvanized into my own learning I recited the Hadran on Shas in January 2020 with Rabbanit Michelle. That Siyum was a highlight in my life. Now, on round two, Daf has become my spiritual anchor to which I attribute manifold blessings.
Rina Goldberg
Englewood NJ, United States
Meilah 16
לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא לְעִנְיַן טוּמְאָה, אֲבָל לְעִנְיַן אֲכִילָה – טְהוֹרִין בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָן, וּטְמֵאִים בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָן. וְלֵוִי אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ לַאֲכִילָה נָמֵי מִצְטָרְפִין.
The mishna taught that all carcasses join together, which indicates that carcasses of non-kosher animals join together with carcasses of kosher animals, only with regard to ritual impurity. But with regard to the prohibition of eating animal carcasses, kosher animal carcasses are distinct, i.e., they join together only with other kosher animals, and non-kosher animal carcasses are likewise distinct. And Levi says: Even with regard to the prohibition of eating animal carcasses, kosher and non-kosher carcasses join together.
וְרַב אַסִּי אָמַר: טְהוֹרִים לְעַצְמָן וּטְמֵאִין לְעַצְמָן. אִיכָּא דְאָמְרִי: פְּלִיגָא אַדְּרַב, וְאִיכָּא דְאָמְרִי: לָא פְּלִיגָא.
And Rav Asi says: Kosher animal carcasses are distinct, and non-kosher animal carcasses are distinct. Since Rav Asi did not specify whether he is referring only to eating or also to ritual impurity, there are those who say that Rav Asi disagrees with the opinion of Rav, i.e., he interprets the mishna as referring to all carcasses of a similar kind, that is, from kosher animals on the one hand, and from non-kosher animals on the other hand. And there are those who say that Rav Asi does not disagree with the opinion of Rav, and concedes that kosher and non-kosher animal carcasses join together with regard to ritual impurity.
מֵיתִיבִי: מִיתַת פָּרָה, וְחַיֵּי גָמָל – אֵין מִצְטָרְפִין זֶה עִם זֶה. הָא מִיתַת שְׁנֵיהֶם – מִצְטָרְפִין, וְקַשְׁיָא לְרַב אַסִּי!
The Gemara raises an objection against the first explanation of the opinion of Rav Asi from a baraita: With regard to half an olive-bulk from the carcass of a dead cow and half an olive-bulk from the flesh of a live camel, they do not join together with one another. It can be inferred from here that if both of them are dead, they do join together. Rav can explain this baraita as referring to ritual impurity, but this poses a difficulty to Rav Asi.
אֵימָא: הָא חַיֵּי שְׁנֵיהֶם – מִצְטָרְפִין, וּמַנִּי – רַבִּי יְהוּדָה הִיא, דְּאָמַר: אֵבֶר מִן הַחַי נוֹהֵג בַּטְּמֵאָה.
The Gemara answers: One should say that the correct inference from the baraita is not that if both of them, the cow and the camel, are dead, then they join together. Rather, one should infer that if both of them are alive, they join together. And who is the tanna of the baraita? It is Rabbi Yehuda, who said: The prohibition of eating a limb from a living animal applies even to the limb of a non-kosher animal.
אֲבָל מִיתַת שְׁנֵיהֶם, מַאי? לָא מִצְטָרְפִי? אִם כֵּן, מַאי אִירְיָא דְּרָהֵיט וְתָנֵי ״מִיתַת פָּרָה וְחַיֵּי גָמָל״, הָא אֲפִילּוּ מִיתַת שְׁנֵיהֶם לָא מִצְטָרְפִי!
The Gemara raises a difficulty with this answer. But in that case, what is the halakha if both of them, the cow and the camel, are dead? Do they not join together? If so, why does the tanna run specifically to an extreme case and teach: Half an olive-bulk from the carcass of a dead cow and half an olive-bulk from the flesh of a live camel? After all, even if both of them are dead, they do not join together.
וְעוֹד, תַּנְיָא: חֲצִי זַיִת פָּרָה בְּחַיֶּיהָ וַחֲצִי זַיִת גָּמָל בְּמִיתָתָהּ – אֵין מִצְטָרְפִין. אֲבָל חֲצִי זַיִת מִפָּרָה וַחֲצִי זַיִת מִגָּמָל, בֵּין בְּחַיֶּיהָ בֵּין בְּמִיתָתָהּ – מִצְטָרְפִין. קַשְׁיָא רֵישָׁא אַסֵּיפָא! אֶלָּא לָאו שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: מִיתַת שְׁנֵיהֶם – מִצְטָרְפִין!?
And furthermore, it is taught in a baraita: Half an olive-bulk from the flesh of a cow when it is alive and half an olive-bulk from the carcass of a camel when it is dead do not join together; but half an olive-bulk from a cow and half an olive-bulk from a camel, whether alive or dead, do join together. The first clause in the baraita is difficult as it is apparently contradicted by the latter clause. Rather, isn’t it correct to conclude from the baraita that if there is half an olive-bulk from each of the two of them when they are dead, they join together?
אָמַר לְךָ רַב אַסִּי: הַאי תַּנָּא סָבַר אִיסּוּר חָל עַל אִיסּוּר.
The Gemara answers: Rav Asi could have said to you that this tanna holds that a prohibition takes effect even where another prohibition already exists. He maintains that the prohibition of eating an animal carcass takes effect even with regard to the flesh of a non-kosher animal, which is already prohibited, and for this reason the two half olive-bulks join together, as the same prohibition against eating an animal carcass applies to both. By contrast, Rav Asi himself maintains that a prohibition does not take effect where another prohibition already exists, and therefore this baraita does not pose a difficulty to his opinion that the two do not combine.
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה, אָמַר רַב: אֲכִילַת שְׁרָצִים – לוֹקֶה עָלָיו בִּכְזַיִת. מַאי טַעְמָא? ׳אֲכִילָה׳ כְּתִיב בְּהוּ.
§ Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: With regard to eating creeping animals, one is flogged for eating an olive-bulk of them. What is the reason? It is because the term “eating” is written in the Torah with regard to them. The verse states: “And every creeping thing that swarms upon the earth is a detestable thing; it shall not be eaten” (Leviticus 11:41). The term “eating” is invariably referring to consuming an olive-bulk.
וְהָתָנֵי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: ״וְהִבְדַּלְתֶּם בֵּין הַבְּהֵמָה הַטְּהֹרָה לַטְּמֵאָה וּבֵין הָעוֹף הַטָּמֵא לַטָּהֹר וְלֹא תְשַׁקְּצוּ אֶת נַפְשֹׁתֵיכֶם בַּבְּהֵמָה וּבָעוֹף וּבְכֹל אֲשֶׁר תִּרְמֹשׂ הָאֲדָמָה אֲשֶׁר הִבְדַּלְתִּי לָכֶם לְטַמֵּא״ – פָּתַח הַכָּתוּב בַּאֲכִילָה, וְסִיֵּים בְּטוּמְאָה.
The Gemara raises a difficulty. But didn’t Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Ḥanina teach the following baraita before Rabbi Yoḥanan: The verse states: “You shall separate between the kosher animal and the non-kosher, and between the non-kosher bird and the kosher; and you shall not make your souls detestable by animal, or by bird, or by anything that swarms on the ground, which I have set apart for you as impure” (Leviticus 20:25). The verse opens with eating creeping animals, in the phrase “You shall not make your souls detestable,” and it ends with the ritual impurity of creeping animals: “Which I have set apart for you as impure.”
מָה טוּמְאָה בְּכַעֲדָשָׁה, אַף אֲכִילָה בְּכַעֲדָשָׁה. וְקַלְּסֵיהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, וְקַשְׁיָא לִדְרַב!
The baraita explains: This teaches that just as the carcass of a creeping animal imparts ritual impurity through contact when it is the volume of a lentil-bulk, so too, one is liable for the prohibition of eating a creeping animal when it is the volume of a lentil-bulk. And Rabbi Yoḥanan praised [vekilseih] Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Ḥanina for citing this baraita. And this poses a difficulty to the opinion of Rav, who maintains that one is flogged only if he eats an olive-bulk of creeping animals.
לָא קַשְׁיָא: כָּאן – בְּמִיתָתָן, כָּאן – בְּחַיֵּיהֶן.
The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. Here, the baraita is referring to eating creeping animals when they are dead, at which stage they impart ritual impurity and one is liable for eating a lentil-bulk. By contrast, there, Rav is speaking about eating creeping animals when they are alive, which do not yet impart ritual impurity. For this reason one is flogged only if he eats an olive-bulk.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: וְהָא רַב אַמַּתְנִיתִין קָאֵי, וּמַתְנִיתִין ״כׇּל הַשְּׁרָצִים״ קָתָנֵי, אֲפִילּוּ בְּמִיתָתָן. לָאו דְּאִיכָּא פּוּרְתָּא מֵהַאי וּפוּרְתָּא מֵהַאי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב יוֹסֵף: הָהִיא דִּיּוּקָא דִּילָךְ הוּא. רַב – שְׁמַעְתָּא בְּעָלְמָא קָאָמַר.
Abaye said to Rav Yosef: But in his statement Rav was referring to the mishna, and the mishna teaches: And all the creeping animals join together to constitute the requisite olive-bulk measure to render one who consumes it liable to receive lashes. This indicates that this halakha applies even when they are dead. Is the mishna not referring to a case where there is a bit of this live creeping animal and a bit of that carcass of a creeping animal, which together combine to amount to an olive-bulk? Rav Yosef said to Abaye: This deductive inference, that Rav is referring to the mishna, is yours. But in fact Rav was merely saying a halakha unconnected to the mishna. Therefore, there is no proof that Rav was speaking about the carcasses of creeping animals.
וְקַלְּסֵיהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן. מֵיתִיבִי: הָאֵיבָרִין – אֵין לָהֶן שִׁיעוּר, אֲפִילּוּ פָּחוֹת מִכְּזַיִת נְבֵלָה וּפָחוֹת מִכַּעֲדָשָׁה מִן הַשֶּׁרֶץ – מְטַמְּאִין. וְאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אֵין לוֹקִין עֲלֵיהֶן אֶלָּא בִּכְזַיִת!
The Gemara stated: And Rabbi Yoḥanan praised Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Ḥanina for citing the baraita that rules that one is liable for violating the prohibition of eating a creeping animal by the amount of a lentil-bulk. The Gemara raises an objection from a mishna (Oholot 1:7): The whole limbs of impure bodies have no minimum measure with regard to imparting ritual impurity. Even if the limbs were less than an olive-bulk of a carcass or less than a lentil-bulk of a creeping animal, they impart ritual impurity. And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: This mishna is referring to the halakhot of ritual impurity; but with regard to the minimum measure which renders one liable for consumption, one is flogged for eating them only if they amount to an olive-bulk.
אָמַר רָבָא: בְּמוּבְדָּלִין דִּבֵּר הַכָּתוּב.
Rava says in resolution of the apparent contradiction between Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statements: When Rabbi Yoḥanan said that one is flogged for eating even a lentil-bulk of a creeping animal, he was referring only to those eight creeping animals of which the verse speaks, which are separated from all other creeping animals. The Torah (Leviticus 11:29–32) lists eight types of creeping animals, and Rabbi Yoḥanan was referring specifically to those eight. He maintains that one is flogged for eating a lentil-bulk of such creatures, whereas in the case of other creeping animals one is flogged only for eating an olive-bulk of them.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה לְרָבָא: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, בְּהֵמָה נָמֵי, לִיפְלְגִי בֵּין מוּבְדֶּלֶת לְשֶׁאֵינָהּ מוּבְדֶּלֶת.
Rav Adda bar Ahava said to Rava: If that is so, that there is a difference in the measure of liability for consumption between various types of creeping animals, the same should also apply with regard to an animal. Since the Torah in Leviticus 20:25 juxtaposes both kosher animals and non-kosher animals to creeping animals, one can say that an analogous difference should apply here as well: Let the halakha distinguish between flesh from the carcass of kosher animals, which is separated from other types in that it is permitted in consumption by the Torah, and flesh from the carcass of a non-kosher animal, which is not separated, i.e., which is not permitted by the Torah. Consequently, if the carcass of a kosher animal imparts ritual impurity by the amount of an olive-bulk of flesh, the measure of flesh from the carcass of a non-kosher animal that imparts ritual impurity should be larger, i.e., an egg-bulk.
Follow
